My contact with gay Republicans has been limited. They are a rare breed. A poll once showed that 80% of self-identified gay men voted for Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry in '04, as I did. And no wonder--Republican politicians tend to make offensive remarks directed at gays. Republicans, almost by default, tend to oppose anything that might make life more bearable for gays, while favoring laws to make life worse for gays.
In 1996, the Log Cabin Republicans ran an ad in gay newspapers that pointed out that then-President Clinton had done little or nothing for gays. They were right. As a point of fact, the Clinton administration proved to be a disaster for gay Americans, as it oversaw the passage of the misnamed "Defense of Marriage" act as well as "Don't Ask / Don't Tell" in the armed forces. Clinton talked the talk, but didn't walk the walk. I was struck by the advertisement, because the claims it made were all true, and I could not find issue with them. I voted for Clinton anyway, because the alternative was no better, and I agreed with Clinton on other issues. However, Clinton served conservative business interests better than any other group. It is difficult to praise any particular accomplishment made by his administration. Perhaps the best that can be said is that Clinton made fewer blunders than the succeeding administration.
Recently, the Log Cabin Republicans have done something I support, challenging the military's DADT rule in federal court. It is my hope that DADT is struck down in the near future and the armed forces integrated, as is the case in many other countries, such as Israel and the UK.
More information on the Log Cabin Republicans' lawsuit can be found here.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Monday, July 12, 2010
The Cost of Freedom?
Keeping guns legal, cheap and easily obtained has tangible costs in terms of human lives, as demonstrated by this recent atrocity.
Making marijuana legal would have no cost at all in human lives.
Why are conservative Republicans so irrational that they oppose even the mildest restrictions on guns, but want severe penalties for marijuana?
This logical contradiction is enough reason, all by itself, to vote against Republicans in every election. However, Republicans are generous. They supply thousands of other reasons to vote against them. One logical contradiction follows another when it comes to the GOP. Logic is their weak point.
Making marijuana legal would have no cost at all in human lives.
Why are conservative Republicans so irrational that they oppose even the mildest restrictions on guns, but want severe penalties for marijuana?
This logical contradiction is enough reason, all by itself, to vote against Republicans in every election. However, Republicans are generous. They supply thousands of other reasons to vote against them. One logical contradiction follows another when it comes to the GOP. Logic is their weak point.
Does Reagan Deserve to be on a Stamp?
The chorus of adulation that always attends any mention of former President Reagan in the mainstream media ignores the outcomes of his administration's policies. It is due to Reagan's poor decision to support Bin Laden and the Islamic resistance in Afghanistan that we are bogged down in Afghanistan today, just like the Soviets from 1979 - 1989. Apparently, the conservative right-wingers in the U.S. felt guilty for what they inflicted upon the Soviet Union and were determined to inflict the same injury upon the U.S., although it is likely the final tab for our war will exceed anything incurred by the frugal Soviets.
I do not think anyone would mind a communist Afghanistan today. Certainly, no Republicans blink at buying goods manufactured in communist China. A modern communist Afghanistan would have been far preferable to what is there now and what may be there in the future. Women would have been better off in a communist Afghanistan.
Incidentally, why is it that the U.S. is hostile toward Communist Cuba, while maintaining cordial relations toward Communist China? China's government is far less ethical than Cuba's. To be sure, the government of Cuba is a dictatorship, but it does not appear to be of quite the same character as Iran's. China has shown belligerence to Taiwan, a U.S. ally, going so far as to threaten the little island-nation with total annihilation. The U.S. should at least have the same scope of relations with Cuba as it does with China, in order to be morally consistent. Otherwise, the hypocrisy is clear for all to observe.
Reagan was a loyal friend to Osama Bin Laden and other Islamic fundamentalists, even going so far as selling arms to Iran in a covert manner. Reagan was unable to see past the anticommunist rhetoric he had immersed himself in during his career. According to his worldview, communism was the only threat. He was wrong about that, just as he was wrong about a great many other things.
Reagan began in earnest the great budget-busting deficit spending that was to lead to today's enormous federal debt of eleven trillion dollars. Rather than be a good steward of the economy, Reagan siphoned funds from taxpayers to the defense industry on the pretext of guarding against a phantom Soviet threat. It is due to the policies of Reagan and succeeding administrations that the U.S. is in the economic situation that it is today. The only area of manufacturing where the U.S. retains a high competence involves weapons of war. However, war is not a product that consumers in other nations wish to buy. Hence, the trade deficit.
Until greater numbers of voters elect liberal, left-wing politicians, then it can be anticipated that the U.S. will spend all available monies on weaponry and gadgets of war. Under any Republican administration, it can be anticipated that the U.S. will engage in counter-productive overseas adventures to feed the egos of vain old men who like to play at being armchair generals. It is the only thing that is capable of amusing their simple minds. Toy soldiers, bombs, boom, boom, I win, you lose. Republicans despise science, education, research, and development, because these things tend to challenge their preconceived beliefs about the world and about reality. This is why Republicans tend to reduce funding for education and scientific research, while increasing funding for weapons and wars. A vote for a Republican is a vote for barbarism, corruption, and ignorance. Today, the U.S. is still reeling from eight years of neglect and decay under the G. W. Bush administration. It may take eighteen years to repair what was undone in eight.
I do not think anyone would mind a communist Afghanistan today. Certainly, no Republicans blink at buying goods manufactured in communist China. A modern communist Afghanistan would have been far preferable to what is there now and what may be there in the future. Women would have been better off in a communist Afghanistan.
Incidentally, why is it that the U.S. is hostile toward Communist Cuba, while maintaining cordial relations toward Communist China? China's government is far less ethical than Cuba's. To be sure, the government of Cuba is a dictatorship, but it does not appear to be of quite the same character as Iran's. China has shown belligerence to Taiwan, a U.S. ally, going so far as to threaten the little island-nation with total annihilation. The U.S. should at least have the same scope of relations with Cuba as it does with China, in order to be morally consistent. Otherwise, the hypocrisy is clear for all to observe.
Reagan was a loyal friend to Osama Bin Laden and other Islamic fundamentalists, even going so far as selling arms to Iran in a covert manner. Reagan was unable to see past the anticommunist rhetoric he had immersed himself in during his career. According to his worldview, communism was the only threat. He was wrong about that, just as he was wrong about a great many other things.
Reagan began in earnest the great budget-busting deficit spending that was to lead to today's enormous federal debt of eleven trillion dollars. Rather than be a good steward of the economy, Reagan siphoned funds from taxpayers to the defense industry on the pretext of guarding against a phantom Soviet threat. It is due to the policies of Reagan and succeeding administrations that the U.S. is in the economic situation that it is today. The only area of manufacturing where the U.S. retains a high competence involves weapons of war. However, war is not a product that consumers in other nations wish to buy. Hence, the trade deficit.
Until greater numbers of voters elect liberal, left-wing politicians, then it can be anticipated that the U.S. will spend all available monies on weaponry and gadgets of war. Under any Republican administration, it can be anticipated that the U.S. will engage in counter-productive overseas adventures to feed the egos of vain old men who like to play at being armchair generals. It is the only thing that is capable of amusing their simple minds. Toy soldiers, bombs, boom, boom, I win, you lose. Republicans despise science, education, research, and development, because these things tend to challenge their preconceived beliefs about the world and about reality. This is why Republicans tend to reduce funding for education and scientific research, while increasing funding for weapons and wars. A vote for a Republican is a vote for barbarism, corruption, and ignorance. Today, the U.S. is still reeling from eight years of neglect and decay under the G. W. Bush administration. It may take eighteen years to repair what was undone in eight.
Iran's Dictator
Under the reign of Khameini, dictator of Iran, homosexuality is punishable by death. However, those who protest against his tyranny may be sent to Evin prison, where men and women may be subjected to any form of torture, including anal rape. Clearly, what the dictator finds repulsive is not a particular sex act, but the component of love that is found in homosexual relationships. Khameini and his conservative allies are the sworn enemies of love. All their actions are calculated to spread hatred in the world. Khameini's single-minded quest for atomic bombs can be understood as a grasping after a superior instrument for sowing hatred in the world. He believes that the acquisition of nuclear weapons will permanently establish the tyranny.
Russia' Putin, meanwhile, finds various opportunities for diminishing the influence of the Western powers by dealing with the Iranian tyrant. Putin commits the same error made by his predecessor, Stalin, in 1939, neglecting to recognize that his future enemy is on his border, not on another continent.
Russia' Putin, meanwhile, finds various opportunities for diminishing the influence of the Western powers by dealing with the Iranian tyrant. Putin commits the same error made by his predecessor, Stalin, in 1939, neglecting to recognize that his future enemy is on his border, not on another continent.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Irony
It is ironic that Laura Lingle, Governor of Hawaii, vetoed a gay marriage bill. Were it not for the work of the Suffragettes, some of whom were lesbian, she would not even have the right to vote today, let alone hold public office. A similar irony attends conservative African-Americans that oppose gay marriage. Gays made important contributions to the civil rights movement. It is interesting that some people feel so confident of their position in contemporary society that they feel at liberty to throw derision and scorn upon their traditional and historical allies.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Show, Don't Tell
One of the problems with the old adage, "Show, Don't Tell," which is recited to writers, is that for most of us, telling is all we know. In school, every lecture is a tell. Technical books, magazines, and newspapers all tell. Almost all friends and acquaintances tell. Seldom is there any showing, except on television in drama. Therefore, a writer is best served by absorbing large amounts of drama written by other writers. Those writers that neglect to absorb the output of their peers would seem to be at a disadvantage.
Monday, June 28, 2010
The Most Important Friend to Have
I wish I were a wizard. A good test for certain individuals would be to magically clone them just as they are--personality, money, status, family, everything--and see whether they get along with their clone, or whether they discover, to their dismay, that they simply can't stand themselves. Some would like themselves and form a solid friendship (or maybe much more) with their clone.
I think it is best to make friends with one's self. This should happen as soon as possible in life. Only then is it possible to evaluate other people in fairness and learn to appreciate other people just as they are. To like one's self is to accept the flaws along with the good parts. It requires accepting one's essential human nature.
it is painful to watch a person that does not feel comfortable in their own skin. Yet there are many such people in the world. They project an unflattering vision of themselves. Sometimes they are aware of doing so. Other people will perceive a person's self-image and take it into consideration. Our primary reference is ourselves, not others. We introduce ourselves to the world, as if to say, "Here I am, and here is how you should see me." Therefore, it is best to project a beautiful vision of one's self. If one believes in one's self, then the rest will follow.
I think it is best to make friends with one's self. This should happen as soon as possible in life. Only then is it possible to evaluate other people in fairness and learn to appreciate other people just as they are. To like one's self is to accept the flaws along with the good parts. It requires accepting one's essential human nature.
it is painful to watch a person that does not feel comfortable in their own skin. Yet there are many such people in the world. They project an unflattering vision of themselves. Sometimes they are aware of doing so. Other people will perceive a person's self-image and take it into consideration. Our primary reference is ourselves, not others. We introduce ourselves to the world, as if to say, "Here I am, and here is how you should see me." Therefore, it is best to project a beautiful vision of one's self. If one believes in one's self, then the rest will follow.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Rosalyn Carter on "The Daily Show"
One of my favorite guests in recent memory on "The Daily Show" was Rosalyn Carter, who appeared in the May 4th, 2010 episode. She is a stalwart advocate of the mentally ill and tried to persuade Jon to become involved as an investigative journalist on behalf of mental health issues. Her biography on Wikipedia is impressive. She sat in on Cabinet Meetings in the White House.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Get Them on Camera
Another film maker has captured the face of homophobia on camera, documenting the money trail from the Mormon Church to the passage of Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California. Capturing the homophobes on camera creates a record that will damn them for all time. It will help historians in the task of assigning of blame and praise when describing our era.
The state senator pictured in the above article, described as a "proud homophobe," should be in the dictionary right beside the word "homophobe." They are not easy on the eyes, to say the least.
The state senator pictured in the above article, described as a "proud homophobe," should be in the dictionary right beside the word "homophobe." They are not easy on the eyes, to say the least.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Signposts
One of the problems that faced gay youth in former decades was the lack of signposts in our society. Growing up, there didn't seem to be much of a future. There were few or no role models. Marriage was not an option and still is not in most states. All teachers at school either professed to be or were straight, or else never alluded to their love lives, leaving it an unmentionable mystery. A student could get a detention just for asking! As for the other students, everyone referred to gays as "fags," and their understanding of it, if any deeper than the label itself, went no further than the sex acts, described in the crudest manner. To make matters worse, homosexuality was associated with AIDS and death. "GAY" stood for "Got Aids Yet?", a formula recited by millions of schoolchildren the world over. Of course, no one at Church was gay! That goes without saying. Homosexuality was never mentioned from the pulpit in either a positive or a negative way.
The local newspaper occasionally mentioned the subject, but only in the context of crime: man rapes boy; undercover officer arrests homosexual in public bathroom or park; young men tie up and rob homosexual lawyer, who reports the crime only to be exposed as a homosexual in the newspaper. Sometimes the paper printed right-wing editorials that characterized homosexuals as every conceivable type of villain imaginable. My blood used to boil reading those editorials, because I knew they were outrageously unfair. Sometimes I wrote a letter to the editor to complain about it, but I was never bold enough to sign my own name, being a teenager at the time. I was sure it would get me in trouble somehow. The newspaper never published my letters anyway.
My letters tended to be discarded without response, whether I was writing to the newspaper, a magazine, or to the man who wrote a weekly column in our paper. In the last case, however, I remember writing a letter arguing in the most passionate terms for the inclusion of young gay men in the military. This time, I wrote in longhand, without a computer, to make it more personal, and signed the letter with my name. I said that I myself was eighteen years old, six feet tall, of sound mind and body, strong and brave and ready to die to defend my country. How can anyone deny me the right to serve my country? He did not respond, and I thought my effort was wasted. However, ten years later, he wrote in his column in favor of gays in the military. I think my letter may have had a delayed impact. Sometimes one plants a seed, and long does it take to root and grow. But all that I had written was true. I did not say anything that I did not believe in with all my soul. When one writes the truth, it carries great weight among those that are capable of discerning truth from falsehood. Never forget this. It is to the credit of good people, because they speak the truth. Evil-doers must lie, because it is their nature, but they will be discovered.
In many cases, I later learned that the most outspoken homophobes were themselves closeted homosexuals, which filled me with a sense of sadness and irony. Why would they betray their own kind? Homophobia was a common kind of self-hate. The men most likely to tolerate homosexuals were the ones that were popular with women and completely comfortable with their heterosexuality. A heterosexual man is pleased to find that there is less competition for females. Only the men that were uncertain about their sexual preference felt they had something to prove. They were the ones that wrote slander against homosexuals in newspapers and magazines.
My parents excluded all adult gays from their society, so I was never exposed to productive, mature, working adult gays. The lack of signposts are a negative influence upon gay youth. For my part, I fell in with criminal elements, the drop-outs and outcasts of our society, because I felt that I must be one too. There was a sense of kinship, of shared destiny. I rather wish there had been signposts, visible guides that demonstrated for me an obtainable future. Censorship, repression, and bullying did not help. Instead, they reinforced a sense that I was different, possibly bad.
I am not sure that the right-wingers really understand the benefits that will trickle down to everyone. Their view of human nature tends to be rather paranoid and punitive. Despite the kicking and screaming of the right-wingers, we are becoming a more human society, more genuine and closer to the heart. The changes that have come about in this country in the area of gay rights so far have been encouraging and signs of positive growth for our society. There will be many that lead happier and more productive lives as a result. A stronger nation will result. No one ever wanted sexuality to be a political issue. I would prefer my love life to be private and of no consequence. When confronted with systematic injustice, politicization becomes a necessity. We have other issues of great importance to confront, and by no means is homosexuality the final frontier. There is also poverty, disease, war, and the environment. But having a more enlightened approach to homosexuality helps. It is one more brick placed into the foundation of a sane society.
The local newspaper occasionally mentioned the subject, but only in the context of crime: man rapes boy; undercover officer arrests homosexual in public bathroom or park; young men tie up and rob homosexual lawyer, who reports the crime only to be exposed as a homosexual in the newspaper. Sometimes the paper printed right-wing editorials that characterized homosexuals as every conceivable type of villain imaginable. My blood used to boil reading those editorials, because I knew they were outrageously unfair. Sometimes I wrote a letter to the editor to complain about it, but I was never bold enough to sign my own name, being a teenager at the time. I was sure it would get me in trouble somehow. The newspaper never published my letters anyway.
My letters tended to be discarded without response, whether I was writing to the newspaper, a magazine, or to the man who wrote a weekly column in our paper. In the last case, however, I remember writing a letter arguing in the most passionate terms for the inclusion of young gay men in the military. This time, I wrote in longhand, without a computer, to make it more personal, and signed the letter with my name. I said that I myself was eighteen years old, six feet tall, of sound mind and body, strong and brave and ready to die to defend my country. How can anyone deny me the right to serve my country? He did not respond, and I thought my effort was wasted. However, ten years later, he wrote in his column in favor of gays in the military. I think my letter may have had a delayed impact. Sometimes one plants a seed, and long does it take to root and grow. But all that I had written was true. I did not say anything that I did not believe in with all my soul. When one writes the truth, it carries great weight among those that are capable of discerning truth from falsehood. Never forget this. It is to the credit of good people, because they speak the truth. Evil-doers must lie, because it is their nature, but they will be discovered.
In many cases, I later learned that the most outspoken homophobes were themselves closeted homosexuals, which filled me with a sense of sadness and irony. Why would they betray their own kind? Homophobia was a common kind of self-hate. The men most likely to tolerate homosexuals were the ones that were popular with women and completely comfortable with their heterosexuality. A heterosexual man is pleased to find that there is less competition for females. Only the men that were uncertain about their sexual preference felt they had something to prove. They were the ones that wrote slander against homosexuals in newspapers and magazines.
My parents excluded all adult gays from their society, so I was never exposed to productive, mature, working adult gays. The lack of signposts are a negative influence upon gay youth. For my part, I fell in with criminal elements, the drop-outs and outcasts of our society, because I felt that I must be one too. There was a sense of kinship, of shared destiny. I rather wish there had been signposts, visible guides that demonstrated for me an obtainable future. Censorship, repression, and bullying did not help. Instead, they reinforced a sense that I was different, possibly bad.
I am not sure that the right-wingers really understand the benefits that will trickle down to everyone. Their view of human nature tends to be rather paranoid and punitive. Despite the kicking and screaming of the right-wingers, we are becoming a more human society, more genuine and closer to the heart. The changes that have come about in this country in the area of gay rights so far have been encouraging and signs of positive growth for our society. There will be many that lead happier and more productive lives as a result. A stronger nation will result. No one ever wanted sexuality to be a political issue. I would prefer my love life to be private and of no consequence. When confronted with systematic injustice, politicization becomes a necessity. We have other issues of great importance to confront, and by no means is homosexuality the final frontier. There is also poverty, disease, war, and the environment. But having a more enlightened approach to homosexuality helps. It is one more brick placed into the foundation of a sane society.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Orrin Hatch on Gays
Recently, Hatch opined that "gays and lesbians don't pay tithing; their religion is politics." He characterized the comment as praise. Perhaps he did mean the comment as praise. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I think the problem that some in the gay community have with the comment is that Orrin Hatch is not known for supporting equal rights. To have someone on the "other side" paint the entire community with one broad brush is apt to invite criticism.
I wonder whose "religion" would stand up best to intense scrutiny--mine or that of Orrin Hatch? My religion is rather simple. I believe in science, compassion, and love. That is all.
As for Orrin Hatch, his religion is complicated, requiring a book to explain. He would be hard-pressed to summarize his beliefs.
Many people brag about tithing to their church. Tithing is a voluntary socialist regime whereby members contribute funds to an exclusive group in order to receive material benefits in return. Because it is called "tithing," the practice is tax-free under U.S. law as part of our guarantee of religious freedom. People use tithing to evade taxation and undermine the secular government. They seek to aid and assist only their own little tribe.
I think the problem that some in the gay community have with the comment is that Orrin Hatch is not known for supporting equal rights. To have someone on the "other side" paint the entire community with one broad brush is apt to invite criticism.
I wonder whose "religion" would stand up best to intense scrutiny--mine or that of Orrin Hatch? My religion is rather simple. I believe in science, compassion, and love. That is all.
As for Orrin Hatch, his religion is complicated, requiring a book to explain. He would be hard-pressed to summarize his beliefs.
Many people brag about tithing to their church. Tithing is a voluntary socialist regime whereby members contribute funds to an exclusive group in order to receive material benefits in return. Because it is called "tithing," the practice is tax-free under U.S. law as part of our guarantee of religious freedom. People use tithing to evade taxation and undermine the secular government. They seek to aid and assist only their own little tribe.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Putin the Chessplayer
A recent media story notes that Russia declined to ship S-300 missiles to Iran.
The whole missile deal was just a cynical bargaining chip by Putin, who sought to extract various other concessions from the West in return for not arming the brutal Iranian dictatorship against the United States and Israel.
Both Putin and the Iranian dictatorship are absolute evil. Of the two, Putin is less obnoxious, because he is better educated and can be counted upon to exhibit enlightened selfishness, which is better than brutish, stupid, self-defeating selfishness, as exhibited by the Iranian dictator, who has embraced Thanatos.
The whole missile deal was just a cynical bargaining chip by Putin, who sought to extract various other concessions from the West in return for not arming the brutal Iranian dictatorship against the United States and Israel.
Both Putin and the Iranian dictatorship are absolute evil. Of the two, Putin is less obnoxious, because he is better educated and can be counted upon to exhibit enlightened selfishness, which is better than brutish, stupid, self-defeating selfishness, as exhibited by the Iranian dictator, who has embraced Thanatos.
Any Regrets in the "Red" Gulf States?
As the BP oil spill enters our food chain, I wonder whether the majority living in the "Red" Gulf States regrets supporting George W. Bush and various conservative Republicans in Congress in 2000 and 2004. It was his Administration that was responsible for reducing the oversight over oil and gas companies. Now the chickens have come home to roost. Ye reap what ye sow.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Mainstream Media Comments, Continued
I found an entertaining comment today at the Washington Post written by a user called rashton:
In the interest of fairness, I am including a link with actual photographs of Teabagger demonstrations. I believe it is important to show both sides of an issue.
I watched the teabaggers throng onto the Boston Common in a staged circus when Sarah Paleface sea-gulled her appearance here -- swooping in, dropping a load and swooping back out. The teabaggers were bussed in -- I saw the caravans arriving from out of town -- or drove in from other parts of the country. They were overwhelmingly white -- and the same is true of teabag crowds in news photos and non-staged television tapes from all the teabagger events. They told student reporters to go f*** themselves, because they had been warned to speak with no reporters except those from Fox (of course, they were ignorant enough to actually repeat these instructions to the college reporters. The teabagger interlopers were also instructed to bring small children if they had them, to reinforce an image of "familiness" that went along with the whiteness to create a picture that harkened back to an Ozzie and Harriet/Father Knows Best/Leave It To Beaver America they long for and hope to represent.This comment impressed me so much I wish to record it in my blog. It contains first-hand observations, rather than canned prejudices and threats of violence, as one often finds from the right-wingers who tend to crowd the comments section. However, I prefer the term "teabaggers" over "tea suckers," which doesn't make sense. "Teabaggers" was the original moniker chosen by the Tea Partyers themselves, and I think it should be retained out of respect for their wishes.
So, yes, we DO know who the teabaggers are. They are ill-educated, misguided people frightened of change and easy to manipulate. They want easy answers to the complex issues that scare them. They feed on Fox News and blind themselves to reality -- like the irreversible demographic shift that's making their version of America increasingly irrelevant. It is a movement that will crumble under the weight of the actual world. As jaxas70 put it well when he told the teabaggers that, if they win, "You are going to have to act. And once you do, you are going to find out that talking platitudes about our problems is soooo much easier than actually having to govern. Governing is something you tea suckers don't care much for. But, in the big leagues, the voters are going to expect you to do more than just blather 18th century platitudes that don't amount to a hill of beans."
In the interest of fairness, I am including a link with actual photographs of Teabagger demonstrations. I believe it is important to show both sides of an issue.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
No More Gays Because of Evolution?
This is a follow-up to the post where I criticized the comments section on major news sites for showcasing the ignorant. The smaller the brain, the bigger the mouth.
A user named celticwitch left the following comment on CNN.com:
Long ago, the haters claimed that only 2% of the population was homosexual. Celticwitch doubles that estimate, which is better, although no one really knows the actual number, and it is dishonest to claim in certain terms that the population is known. I am interested in this idea that before caring what happens to a group, we must count the numbers. Unless there is a majority, who cares? Stuff them in ovens and scatter their ashes. Is that the underlying logic?
Now the evolutionary argument is attempted, which is a new development that I did not encounter decades ago as a gay teenager, reading the angry thoughts of homophobes in my town's newspaper. So, we are on the way out? Gays will be eliminated by evolution? Should I be concerned? Not really. I could care less. However, I am interested in this idea of evolution eliminating homosexuality.
Indeed, why do homosexuals exist at all? According to the theory of evolution, we should be eliminated, no? I have several thoughts regarding that puzzle. The more I consider the question, the more factors become apparent. It is not a simple case of an individual failing to reproduce and his or her trait becoming extinguished in the next generation. If things were that easy, then many traits would be extinguished by now, such as multiple sclerosis. One factor is that traits are interlinked with other traits, rather than carried in isolation. Another factor is that homosexuality is much more diverse than an ignoramus like celticwitch could ever dream. There are as many variations to homosexuals as there are to heterosexuals. Bisexuality is one such variant.
Ironically enough, homophobia encourages homosexuality to persist by pressuring gays to pretend to be other than what they are and to procreate. When society tolerates exclusive homosexuality, then homosexuality may actually decline, assuming that homosexuality has primarily a genetic or prenatal component, which I think has been established. (It used to be that arguments would rage over whether homosexuality was learned behavior, but this is seldom a point of debate anymore, and even celticwitch avoided that line of argument.)
The concept of reproductive success is misunderstood by celticwitch. Genes are reproduced, not individuals, at least until such time that scientists perfect a technique for human cloning. The genes are shared among many family members and dispersed throughout the human race. Therefore, any consideration of reproductive success must also take into account entire families and also the wider community, because traits are shared universally. To consider only an individual is to mistake the tree for the woods.
Male homosexuality is best understood as a love and admiration for the male sex. When the same trait manifests in women, reproductive benefits may accrue. A woman with enthusiasm for men will be likely to have more children and to enjoy a passionate, healthy relationship with her partner. Thus, traits associated with male homosexuality may result in greater reproductive success much of the time, only incurring a penalty when arising in the male gender.
Another factor to consider are the contributions that a homosexual makes to his tribe when allowed to do so. There are many historical examples of homosexuals that made important contributions in the fields of science, medicine, art, literature, politics, philosophy, and even war. Many names will never be certain due to the secrecy that attended homosexual relations in earlier times. To ignore documented and undocumented contributions is to imagine that humans live in perfect isolation from one another in some kind of artificial laboratory environment. In reality, everyone exerts a certain amount of influence upon others, sometimes a very great influence.
It may be that homosexuality is necessary for the survival of the species, because the general trend for men has been to war with one another. A trend where men do something besides fight is not such a bad thing. Homosexuals tend to increase the peace by transcending races, cultures, and classes. Their intended role is that of peacemaker. It is no coincidence that evil-doers around the world oppose homosexuals, even going so far as to impose the death penalty. Evil-doers favor war and wish for the world to end in fire, and so they always oppose those perceived as agents of a different plan for mankind.
Even if homosexuals were on the way out, the thought would not trouble me, because I identify with the larger group, H. Sapiens, more than the subset, homosexuals, except when observing homophobes that want to make a divisive issue out of sexuality. I would be concerned if compassion were extinguished from the race, because that would result in a diminishing of our race into brutish savages.
As to the subject of the CNN post above, concerning whether Elton John should or should not play at Rush Limbaugh's wedding, I don't have an opinion. Celebrities do not interest me that much. I have to agree with other commentators that Elton is a minor deity. His transgression would have to be severe indeed to fall from grace in the public mind. Perhaps Elton is privy to secret information that is not available to the media or the general public. He may have his reasons, and I for one would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I'm surprised to read in the CNN article that Rush Limbaugh supports civil unions for gays, but I wonder what that means? For my part, I don't care what the procedure is called, as long as the legal rights become available and are comparable to marriage. I find a pragmatic approach to be acceptable.
The last time I tuned in to Rush, about twenty years ago, he had nothing positive to say about gays or civil rights for gays. I remember him standing up and saying something foolish to the effect that all real Americans play football, and any high school student that didn't play football and do "American" things wasn't a real American. That is when I made up my mind that Rush was an idiot. Since that time, he has called for longer sentences for drug offenders, when he himself was a drug addict. Instead of prison time, he received the finest medical care for his addiction. It is typical of conservatives that they want harsh punishments for poor people that have problems, but for themselves, only the easy road. I doubt he's changed his tune that much. If he really does support civil unions, then he should discuss the issue in depth on one of his shows and call some of fellow conservatives to task for playing the bigot.
A user named celticwitch left the following comment on CNN.com:
Why all this fighting? Homosexuals make up only 4% of the world's population. That number has not changed in 20 years. Why? They cannot reproduce as easily as heterosexuals. Unless we evolve into an asexual species, their numbers will continually decline. It only seems like it's growing because fewer people are hiding their anomaly. In reality, they are a very small minority.
Long ago, the haters claimed that only 2% of the population was homosexual. Celticwitch doubles that estimate, which is better, although no one really knows the actual number, and it is dishonest to claim in certain terms that the population is known. I am interested in this idea that before caring what happens to a group, we must count the numbers. Unless there is a majority, who cares? Stuff them in ovens and scatter their ashes. Is that the underlying logic?
Now the evolutionary argument is attempted, which is a new development that I did not encounter decades ago as a gay teenager, reading the angry thoughts of homophobes in my town's newspaper. So, we are on the way out? Gays will be eliminated by evolution? Should I be concerned? Not really. I could care less. However, I am interested in this idea of evolution eliminating homosexuality.
Indeed, why do homosexuals exist at all? According to the theory of evolution, we should be eliminated, no? I have several thoughts regarding that puzzle. The more I consider the question, the more factors become apparent. It is not a simple case of an individual failing to reproduce and his or her trait becoming extinguished in the next generation. If things were that easy, then many traits would be extinguished by now, such as multiple sclerosis. One factor is that traits are interlinked with other traits, rather than carried in isolation. Another factor is that homosexuality is much more diverse than an ignoramus like celticwitch could ever dream. There are as many variations to homosexuals as there are to heterosexuals. Bisexuality is one such variant.
Ironically enough, homophobia encourages homosexuality to persist by pressuring gays to pretend to be other than what they are and to procreate. When society tolerates exclusive homosexuality, then homosexuality may actually decline, assuming that homosexuality has primarily a genetic or prenatal component, which I think has been established. (It used to be that arguments would rage over whether homosexuality was learned behavior, but this is seldom a point of debate anymore, and even celticwitch avoided that line of argument.)
The concept of reproductive success is misunderstood by celticwitch. Genes are reproduced, not individuals, at least until such time that scientists perfect a technique for human cloning. The genes are shared among many family members and dispersed throughout the human race. Therefore, any consideration of reproductive success must also take into account entire families and also the wider community, because traits are shared universally. To consider only an individual is to mistake the tree for the woods.
Male homosexuality is best understood as a love and admiration for the male sex. When the same trait manifests in women, reproductive benefits may accrue. A woman with enthusiasm for men will be likely to have more children and to enjoy a passionate, healthy relationship with her partner. Thus, traits associated with male homosexuality may result in greater reproductive success much of the time, only incurring a penalty when arising in the male gender.
Another factor to consider are the contributions that a homosexual makes to his tribe when allowed to do so. There are many historical examples of homosexuals that made important contributions in the fields of science, medicine, art, literature, politics, philosophy, and even war. Many names will never be certain due to the secrecy that attended homosexual relations in earlier times. To ignore documented and undocumented contributions is to imagine that humans live in perfect isolation from one another in some kind of artificial laboratory environment. In reality, everyone exerts a certain amount of influence upon others, sometimes a very great influence.
It may be that homosexuality is necessary for the survival of the species, because the general trend for men has been to war with one another. A trend where men do something besides fight is not such a bad thing. Homosexuals tend to increase the peace by transcending races, cultures, and classes. Their intended role is that of peacemaker. It is no coincidence that evil-doers around the world oppose homosexuals, even going so far as to impose the death penalty. Evil-doers favor war and wish for the world to end in fire, and so they always oppose those perceived as agents of a different plan for mankind.
Even if homosexuals were on the way out, the thought would not trouble me, because I identify with the larger group, H. Sapiens, more than the subset, homosexuals, except when observing homophobes that want to make a divisive issue out of sexuality. I would be concerned if compassion were extinguished from the race, because that would result in a diminishing of our race into brutish savages.
As to the subject of the CNN post above, concerning whether Elton John should or should not play at Rush Limbaugh's wedding, I don't have an opinion. Celebrities do not interest me that much. I have to agree with other commentators that Elton is a minor deity. His transgression would have to be severe indeed to fall from grace in the public mind. Perhaps Elton is privy to secret information that is not available to the media or the general public. He may have his reasons, and I for one would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I'm surprised to read in the CNN article that Rush Limbaugh supports civil unions for gays, but I wonder what that means? For my part, I don't care what the procedure is called, as long as the legal rights become available and are comparable to marriage. I find a pragmatic approach to be acceptable.
The last time I tuned in to Rush, about twenty years ago, he had nothing positive to say about gays or civil rights for gays. I remember him standing up and saying something foolish to the effect that all real Americans play football, and any high school student that didn't play football and do "American" things wasn't a real American. That is when I made up my mind that Rush was an idiot. Since that time, he has called for longer sentences for drug offenders, when he himself was a drug addict. Instead of prison time, he received the finest medical care for his addiction. It is typical of conservatives that they want harsh punishments for poor people that have problems, but for themselves, only the easy road. I doubt he's changed his tune that much. If he really does support civil unions, then he should discuss the issue in depth on one of his shows and call some of fellow conservatives to task for playing the bigot.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Never Serve Evil
It is better to earn $50 by helping a good person with their computer system than $5000 by improving the system of an enterprise run by evil-doers. Never serve evil, because to serve evil is to be evil. Let actions mirror beliefs, or else the beliefs are of no consequence.
There is more to this post than meets the eye. Hidden within are honeypots intended for the Chinese-language spambot that has plagued my blog since its inception. Let's see whether it has a sweet tooth.
Why hello, 123.13.206.59! So nasty of you to drop by. Since you did drop by and attempt (but fail) to spam, your IP has been captured and is now exposed for all the world to see.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Dungeon Crawl Sprint
I scored my first victory in Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup's -sprint module. I like sprint! My hat's off to the Stone Soup team. Wait a minute. I don't wear a hat! Well, you get the idea.*
Two flavors that blend well together are DCSS -sprint and regen.bat, my technique for avoiding sudden death. I have updated the batch to play sprint and execute faster.
A word of advice: beware of Lom Lobon. I was not able to beat him with my Deep Elf Ice Elementalist, but eluded death by luring him to another section of the dungeon. A Blink spell would have been helpful!
The Spriggan Artificer equipped with a wand of Enslavement has a fair chance for survival. However, once the wands run out of charges, all bets are off until a Wand Shop can be found. Stealth is very important in -sprint, and therefore Spriggans have excellent chances. A combo I like even better for -sprint is Spriggan Enchanter. If possible, stab Igyb. If this does not slay him outright, line up the first three monsters in a neat little row, drink the beserker potion, and dispatch them one after the other, in order of the danger they pose. It will then be possible to open the Spriggan's mind to Confuse and Enslave.
Two flavors that blend well together are DCSS -sprint and regen.bat, my technique for avoiding sudden death. I have updated the batch to play sprint and execute faster.
A word of advice: beware of Lom Lobon. I was not able to beat him with my Deep Elf Ice Elementalist, but eluded death by luring him to another section of the dungeon. A Blink spell would have been helpful!
The Spriggan Artificer equipped with a wand of Enslavement has a fair chance for survival. However, once the wands run out of charges, all bets are off until a Wand Shop can be found. Stealth is very important in -sprint, and therefore Spriggans have excellent chances. A combo I like even better for -sprint is Spriggan Enchanter. If possible, stab Igyb. If this does not slay him outright, line up the first three monsters in a neat little row, drink the beserker potion, and dispatch them one after the other, in order of the danger they pose. It will then be possible to open the Spriggan's mind to Confuse and Enslave.
[*] Actually, I used to wear a hat until I noticed a young waitress in a restaurant grinning at me. I was reminded of a Seinfeld episode where George Costanza wears a hat to conceal his baldness.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Comments on Mainstream Media Sites
The Comments section on mainstream media web sites, such as the New York Daily News and many other newspapers, television and radio stations, express base sentiments. Armchair generals advocate lynching, beating, and torture for every conceivable misdemeanor. The reaction to any irritant, domestic or foreign, involves wielding the club. Men not far advanced above chimpanzees express racism, homophobia, sexism, and every other variety of hatred. They would be ashamed of their own words if called upon to defend their thoughts in front of a live audience. The Comments section gives the incorrect impression that idiots are the majority, and that nobody bothers thinking matters through in any depth. Maybe it is a mistake to have a Comments section where the lowest common denominator inserts its less-than-two-cents. Note that I am only talking about MSM sites, not my own, where comments have been pretty good as a rule, with two exceptions, a spambot fluent in Chinese, and a drunkard who remains nameless for the moment*.
Nowadays it is possible to jot down an errant thought without delay. The lack of delay discourages reflection. Brute impulses may be transmitted straight from the amygdala. When writing, I try to let the prefrontal cortex remain in charge. The animal-nature betrays a writer and will never win any support from individuals that operate at a high level of thinking**.
If the writing process required a quill pen, parchment, postage, and a messenger-boy, the correspondent might trouble himself to compose a message containing ideas rather than threats or deprecation. Only those that felt their words had weight would trouble themselves to sit down and write a letter in longhand with a quill pen.
I am old enough to remember a time when a personal letter, whether from a friend, acquaintance, or stranger, was of great importance, enough to make me stop everything that I was doing and devote my whole attention to the message, written in longhand of course. That the letter would be of a certain minimal quality was almost certain.
Writing should be superior to the spoken word. When it is not, I know that I am dealing with a lazy writer who cannot be troubled to proofread. If the writer will not proofread his message, then I will not read it. Proofreading catches grammatical, structural, and organizational errors. It is like the error correction protocol used in many of our technological devices. Without proofreading, errors of every variety are likely to betray the writer, making him look like a fool. I do not know anyone who can pump out sterling prose without revising their text many times. If there is such an exceptional individual, then he might make a good President or Prime Minister, assuming he is not really just a plagiarist.
My goal on this blog is to write nothing that I would regret later. If I write something that I later regret, then I delete it. I have done so at least a hundred times. Sometimes when I go to bed, one of my posts troubles me. I sense that something is amiss, even if I am not sure exactly what it is. When I wake up in the morning, I review the message. If the message has only a minor fault, such as a grammatical error, I edit. If the message appears beyond redemption, I delete. Sometimes I am too quick to delete. I miss some of my old posts that are gone forever. Partial remains of these victims to my internal critic can be found via a Google Search, but they are not to be found on this blog. Even so, I think quality control is a good idea for any blog. There is no predicting which post a reader may begin with. Each post may be my one and only opportunity to make an impression.
Nowadays it is possible to jot down an errant thought without delay. The lack of delay discourages reflection. Brute impulses may be transmitted straight from the amygdala. When writing, I try to let the prefrontal cortex remain in charge. The animal-nature betrays a writer and will never win any support from individuals that operate at a high level of thinking**.
If the writing process required a quill pen, parchment, postage, and a messenger-boy, the correspondent might trouble himself to compose a message containing ideas rather than threats or deprecation. Only those that felt their words had weight would trouble themselves to sit down and write a letter in longhand with a quill pen.
I am old enough to remember a time when a personal letter, whether from a friend, acquaintance, or stranger, was of great importance, enough to make me stop everything that I was doing and devote my whole attention to the message, written in longhand of course. That the letter would be of a certain minimal quality was almost certain.
Writing should be superior to the spoken word. When it is not, I know that I am dealing with a lazy writer who cannot be troubled to proofread. If the writer will not proofread his message, then I will not read it. Proofreading catches grammatical, structural, and organizational errors. It is like the error correction protocol used in many of our technological devices. Without proofreading, errors of every variety are likely to betray the writer, making him look like a fool. I do not know anyone who can pump out sterling prose without revising their text many times. If there is such an exceptional individual, then he might make a good President or Prime Minister, assuming he is not really just a plagiarist.
My goal on this blog is to write nothing that I would regret later. If I write something that I later regret, then I delete it. I have done so at least a hundred times. Sometimes when I go to bed, one of my posts troubles me. I sense that something is amiss, even if I am not sure exactly what it is. When I wake up in the morning, I review the message. If the message has only a minor fault, such as a grammatical error, I edit. If the message appears beyond redemption, I delete. Sometimes I am too quick to delete. I miss some of my old posts that are gone forever. Partial remains of these victims to my internal critic can be found via a Google Search, but they are not to be found on this blog. Even so, I think quality control is a good idea for any blog. There is no predicting which post a reader may begin with. Each post may be my one and only opportunity to make an impression.
* On Memorial Day, I received three comments in one day to three ancient posts of mine. None of the comments addressed the substance of the posts, which seemed to be picked at random. The comments were nothing but insults. My first thought was of a spambot, but instead it was a hatebot, an insulting drunkard who left anonymous comments, afraid to reveal his identity. Nothing that he wrote is worth repeating. I removed the Anonymous Comment feature due to this example of its abuse. It makes me smile to imagine all of this advanced computer technology put to the service of conveying the screeching of baboons.
[**] A fascist will respond by saying he does not care what the liberals think, because he is only preaching to others like himself, lazy armchair generals addicted to anger, who watch FOX News 24/7 and believe everything they are told.
[**] A fascist will respond by saying he does not care what the liberals think, because he is only preaching to others like himself, lazy armchair generals addicted to anger, who watch FOX News 24/7 and believe everything they are told.
The Human Nature
One of my beliefs, which no one I have ever met agrees with, is that the human intelligence is software that evolved over time. It is nothing but software. Our brains are compilations of code, object-oriented subroutines. We are nothing but an elegant and elephantine C++ program. The creator was evolution.
Evolution is not particularly moral. Nor are we. Evolution should never guide our philosophy. Some people, Republicans, think evolution is the answer. It is not. Evolution will lead us to self-destruction. If you slay me, you will be slain in turn. My vengeance is assured, because the willingness to slay will follow your descendants. This is clear to anyone that studies history. What promotes dominance is not necessarily good. Sometimes death is preferable. There are moral imperatives that are higher than survival. We should want what is really good to prevail in the world. Our own lives are not as important as the greater good.
For my part, I think compassion should prevail, not just toward other humans, but toward all life and toward beauty and knowledge. Survival is not everything, and if it were, it would be a ridiculous philosophy, because we are dust, gone in the blink of an eye. I often sense a cosmic smile, as from a god, upon all the vanity of the world and upon my own vanity, because I am just a temporary spark put into being for a brief period of time. It will not be long before I am long gone, and then there will be many others, too many to count, and I will be completely forgotten as though I never existed. Everyone will be forgotten, and that thought may startle the rich and the powerful, whose energies are consumed in getting and fighting with others. They are dust. No one will even know their names.
As I have studied human anatomy, it is clearer to me now that we are like the programs I created during my career. Our scientific knowledge has progressed farther than I anticipated. Everyone knows about DNA. That is old news. What else? We now know what happens in the human body down to the atomic level. Our lives are based upon the interaction of calcium, phosphate, sodium, and other atoms and molecules. We exist because we have to exist. We do what we do because we have no other choice. We are mechanical, not spirits, not elegant entities derived from the Word--or perhaps all is derived from the Word, and I am mistaken. That could be as well. When studying the intricacies of our design, it is difficult to believe that the beautiful and fantastic design could arise through the survival of the fitness. There is a desire to believe that we are the product of a grand scheme. It is difficult to know. Sometimes I believe there is a great Power, a personality, and sometimes I believe instead that everything, good and bad, is a manifestation of the One.
Perhaps the human race is the flower of all these atoms and molecules, produced by a stormy season upon a wet planet. Perhaps love and truth derive from calcium, sodium and phosphate. I do not know. By the way, I think those are the most beautiful words in the English language, "I do not know," because so many people think that they do know, when they do not. Arrogance is uncomely. I will not be like that. To say things about God and portray him as an ignorant, backwoods prude--I think such people know nothing about God and are far away from the creative impulse of the universe. Such religious people, or so they call themselves, have embraced Chaos, which is to say evil, and they do not know what is good. Their punishment is gullibility, because those who cannot discern good from evil will fall prey to the con artists of the world, who are great in number.
Evolution is not particularly moral. Nor are we. Evolution should never guide our philosophy. Some people, Republicans, think evolution is the answer. It is not. Evolution will lead us to self-destruction. If you slay me, you will be slain in turn. My vengeance is assured, because the willingness to slay will follow your descendants. This is clear to anyone that studies history. What promotes dominance is not necessarily good. Sometimes death is preferable. There are moral imperatives that are higher than survival. We should want what is really good to prevail in the world. Our own lives are not as important as the greater good.
For my part, I think compassion should prevail, not just toward other humans, but toward all life and toward beauty and knowledge. Survival is not everything, and if it were, it would be a ridiculous philosophy, because we are dust, gone in the blink of an eye. I often sense a cosmic smile, as from a god, upon all the vanity of the world and upon my own vanity, because I am just a temporary spark put into being for a brief period of time. It will not be long before I am long gone, and then there will be many others, too many to count, and I will be completely forgotten as though I never existed. Everyone will be forgotten, and that thought may startle the rich and the powerful, whose energies are consumed in getting and fighting with others. They are dust. No one will even know their names.
As I have studied human anatomy, it is clearer to me now that we are like the programs I created during my career. Our scientific knowledge has progressed farther than I anticipated. Everyone knows about DNA. That is old news. What else? We now know what happens in the human body down to the atomic level. Our lives are based upon the interaction of calcium, phosphate, sodium, and other atoms and molecules. We exist because we have to exist. We do what we do because we have no other choice. We are mechanical, not spirits, not elegant entities derived from the Word--or perhaps all is derived from the Word, and I am mistaken. That could be as well. When studying the intricacies of our design, it is difficult to believe that the beautiful and fantastic design could arise through the survival of the fitness. There is a desire to believe that we are the product of a grand scheme. It is difficult to know. Sometimes I believe there is a great Power, a personality, and sometimes I believe instead that everything, good and bad, is a manifestation of the One.
Perhaps the human race is the flower of all these atoms and molecules, produced by a stormy season upon a wet planet. Perhaps love and truth derive from calcium, sodium and phosphate. I do not know. By the way, I think those are the most beautiful words in the English language, "I do not know," because so many people think that they do know, when they do not. Arrogance is uncomely. I will not be like that. To say things about God and portray him as an ignorant, backwoods prude--I think such people know nothing about God and are far away from the creative impulse of the universe. Such religious people, or so they call themselves, have embraced Chaos, which is to say evil, and they do not know what is good. Their punishment is gullibility, because those who cannot discern good from evil will fall prey to the con artists of the world, who are great in number.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Know Thyself
Just because one is correct most of the time, does not mean one is always correct. Beware of the exceptions. Many people do not know their own limitations. In the name of self-esteem, a person overlooks his deficiencies. Mistakes result. Arrogance is a species of blindness.
How does one become self-aware? The most difficult things are to listen, observe, and most of all, reflect. The analytical habits of mind allow one to reflect and to succeed in penetrating into the truth of a matter.
I have known managers and professors that were intelligent, but had no awareness of their deficiencies, or were aware at a subconscious level, but denied that they had any flaw. They were doomed to repeat the same mistakes. I feel pity for such people. Those who know their limitations allow themselves to cheat by seeking advice and help from others. I like cheating. Why suffer the consequences of every defect bestowed by nature? There is no need to suffer. Instead, admit to the shortcoming--not so much to others, but to one's own self--and compensate for it. Others are willing to help and glad to be recognized for their strengths.
How does one become self-aware? The most difficult things are to listen, observe, and most of all, reflect. The analytical habits of mind allow one to reflect and to succeed in penetrating into the truth of a matter.
I have known managers and professors that were intelligent, but had no awareness of their deficiencies, or were aware at a subconscious level, but denied that they had any flaw. They were doomed to repeat the same mistakes. I feel pity for such people. Those who know their limitations allow themselves to cheat by seeking advice and help from others. I like cheating. Why suffer the consequences of every defect bestowed by nature? There is no need to suffer. Instead, admit to the shortcoming--not so much to others, but to one's own self--and compensate for it. Others are willing to help and glad to be recognized for their strengths.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)